Now it's again at Sotheby's but this time in London; Richard Prince surpassed that by just $67,000! Even that sliver of money would be tough for most of us to come up with. Who would even imagine that photographs of advertisements would fetch such lofty prices? Really this reminds me of Warhal and his Ketchup or Briillo boxes! How on earth do people figure that he should get credit for photographing someone else's photograph!! I wonder whether or not he had to license the picture to sell his own picture? Further, no credit seems to be given to the original artist!

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

I'm supposed to make the images better not ruin them! Although, It would be an amazing algorithm that could pull detail from a photograph of a printed ad Does anyone know who the photographer for this Marlboro advertisement was? Was it one of Krantz's? It seems a shame that original photographer gets lost in the derivation.

Personally, I think such a price is a damn shame for this poser's "work".

But the fact is that the art auction strata has never had a relationship with the quality of the goods. It's all about fragile male egos, fetishism, the New York / London gallery pump-and-dump circuit, and social status. Half of the time these purchases are made by private bankers managing their clients' "art and antique" portfolios.

Still, it's hard to argue with most of these purchases as investments. They generally produce better returns than nearly any other asset class.